Guía española de la enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (GesEPOC) 2017: tratamiento farmacológico en fase estable / Spanish guidelines for management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (GesEPOC) 2017: pharmacological treatment of stable phase

La enfermedad pulmonar obstructiva crónica (EPOC) presenta una gran heterogeneidad clínica, por lo que su tratamiento se debe individualizar según el nivel de riesgo y el fenotipo. La Guía española de la EPOC (GesEPOC) estableció por primera vez en 2012 unas pautas de tratamiento farmacológico basadas en fenotipos clínicos. Estas pautas han sido adoptadas posteriormente por otras normativas nacionales, y han sido respaldadas por nuevas evidencias publicadas desde entonces. En esta actualización 2017 se ha sustituido la clasificación de gravedad inicial por una clasificación de riesgo mucho más sencilla (bajo o alto riesgo), basándose en la función pulmonar, el grado de disnea y la historia de agudizaciones, y se recomienda la determinación del fenotipo clínico únicamente en pacientes de alto riesgo. Se mantienen los mismos fenotipos clínicos: no agudizador, EPOC-asma (ACO), agudizador con enfisema y agudizador con bronquitis crónica. La base del tratamiento farmacológico de la EPOC es la broncodilatación, y también es el único tratamiento recomendado en pacientes de bajo riesgo. En los pacientes con alto riesgo se añadirán diversos fármacos a los broncodilatadores según el fenotipo clínico. GesEPOC supone una aproximación al tratamiento de la EPOC más individualizado según las características clínicas de los pacientes y su nivel de riesgo o de complejidad.(AU)

The clinical presentation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) varies widely, so treatment must be tailored according to the level of risk and phenotype. In 2012, the Spanish COPD Guidelines (GesEPOC) first established pharmacological treatment regimens based on clinical phenotypes. These regimens were subsequently adopted by other national guidelines, and since then, have been backed up by new evidence. In this 2017 update, the original severity classification has been replaced by a much simpler risk classification (low or high risk), on the basis of lung function, dyspnea grade, and history of exacerbations, while determination of clinical phenotype is recommended only in high-risk patients. The same clinical phenotypes have been maintained: non-exacerbator, asthma-COPD overlap (ACO), exacerbator with emphysema, and exacerbator with bronchitis. Pharmacological treatment of COPD is based on bronchodilators, the only treatment recommended in low-risk patients. High-risk patients will receive different drugs in addition to bronchodilators, depending on their clinical phenotype. GesEPOC reflects a more individualized approach to COPD treatment, according to patient clinical characteristics and level of risk or complexity.(AU)

[Identification of gaps in the clinical patient care of asthma in Spain. Results of the OPTIMA-GEMA survey]. / Identificación de las carencias asistenciales en la atención clínica del asma en España. Resultados de la encuesta OPTIMA-GEMA.

BACKGROUND: Based on the GEMA 2009 guidelines (Spanish Asthma Management Guidelines), this project identified and assessed the main deficiencies in the implementation of the guidelines and proposed initiatives for improvement. METHODS: The study gathered and evaluated the opinions of a multidisciplinary group of asthma experts (allergists, pulmonologists, pediatricians, and primary care physicians). The first step identified health care aspects of GEMA 2009 that could be improved (Phase I). Subsequently, the issues were prioritized, using a 9-point Likert scale (Phase II). RESULTS: In Phase I, 134 physicians participated, and 107 of them took part in Phase II. High priority was assigned to 81% and 49.2% of the limitations identified in health care for adults and children respectively. The most important deficiency in adult care was improving treatment for pregnant women; in pediatric care, it was the use of high doses of beta-2 adrenergic antagonists in asthma deterioration. Other relevant needs were the limited use of spirometry, symptom questionnaires, and written action plans for the patients, as well as the lack of involvement of nursing staff in asthma care and the need to adjust treatment according to levels of control in follow-ups. CONCLUSIONS: The priority areas for improvement were those related to asthma treatment. Future programs for implementation of asthma guidelines should prioritize the use of symptom questionnaires, nursing staff involvement, and attention to pregnant women with asthma.